A sentencing judge who addresses the mitigating effect of an offender's intellectual disability in the context of deterrence is not required to separately and expressly address its effect on moral culpability, provided the sentencing remarks as a whole demonstrate awareness of the issue. A non-parole period of approximately 82% of the head sentence is not erroneous where the sentencing judge identifies poor rehabilitation prospects as the driving consideration. Where aggravated burglary and manslaughter arise from a single incident but involve separate and distinct elements, partial cumulation does not constitute double punishment.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.